


yi 



crvL 



. J'\CLAA''<'^u<y'n/ V/V' 



/3crvt' 



i^VU 



I 8 a . 







Bnnk ."FS^S 



A 



LETTER 



HON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS, 

m 



A MESIBER OF THE SENATZ aflHSSASHVSETTS 



' ^/ 



PRESENT STATE OF OUR NATIONAL AFFAIRS 

WITH MEMAMKS 

UPON ' 

MR. PICKERING'S LETTER 

TO THE 

(GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH. 



BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 



SECOND EDITION* 

C^ BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED BY OLITE& AND BHJNJIO^. 

1808. 



"^ 3 3^ 
.PS3S 



Y 




-A, 



A 

LETTER 

TO THE 

kON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS. 

I WASHINGTON, MARCH 31, 1808. 

Dear Sir^ 

I HAVE re^Bted^ from one of my friends iii 
Boston a copy of a printed pamphlet, containing a let- 
ter from Mr. Pickering to the Governor of the Com- 
monwealth, intended for communication to the Leg- 
islature of the State, during their Session, recently 
Concluded. But this object not having been accom- 
plished , it appears to have been published by some friend 
of the writer, whose inducement is stated, no doubt 
truly, to have been the importance of the matter dis- 
cussed in it, and the high respectability of the author. 

The subjects of this letter .are the Embargo, and the 
differences in controversy between our Country and 
Great-Britain — Subjects upon which it is my misfor- 
tune, in the discharge of my duties as a Senator of the 
United States to differ from the opinions of my Col- 
league. The place where the question upon the first 
of them, in common with others of great national con- 
cerUj was between him and me, in our official capacities! 
a proper object of discussion, was the Senate of the 
Union — TherCj it was discussed, and, as far as the 
constitutional authority of that body extended, there it 
was decided — Having obtained alike the concurrence of 
the other branch of the national Legislature, and the ap- 
probation of the President, it became the Law of the 
Land, and as such I have considered it entitled to the 
respect and obedience of every virtuous citizen. 

From these decisions however, the letter in ques- 
tion is to be considered in the nature of an appeal ; in 
the first instance, to our common constituents, the 
Legislature of the State— and in the second, by the 



4 



publication, to the people. To both these tribunals I 
shall always hold m) self accountable for every act of 
my public life. Yet, were my own political character 
alone implicated in the course which has in this in- 
stance been pursued, I should have forborne all notice 
of the proceeding, and have left my conduct in this, as 
in other cases, to the candour and discretion of my 
^ Country. 

But to this species of appeal, thus conducted, there 
^ are some objections on Constitutional grounds, which 

I deem it my duty to mention for the consideration of 
the public. On a statement of circumstances attend- 
y ing a very important act of national legislation, a state- 

,' ment which the writer undoubtedly believed to bt 

[ true, but which comes only from one side of the 

question and which, I expect to prove in the most es- 
sential points erroneous, the writer with the most an- 
imated tone of energy calls for the interposition of the 
commercial States, and asserts that *' nothing but 
their sense, clearly and emphatically expressed, will 
save them from ruin." This solemn and alarming 
invocation is addressed to the Legislature of Massa- 
^ chusetts, at so late a period of their Session, that had 

it been received by them, they must have been com- 
pelled either to act upon the views of this representa- 
tion, without hearing the counter statement of the 
other side, or seemingly to disregard the pressing in- 
terest of their constituents, by neglecting an admoni- 
tion of the most serious complexion. Considering 
the application as a precedent, its tendency is danger- 
ous to the public. For on the first supposition, that 
the Legislature had been precipitated to act on the 
spur of such an instigation, they must have acted on 
imperfect information, and under an excitement, not 
remarkably adapted to the composure of safe delibera- 
tion. On the second they would have been exposed 
to unjust imputations, which at the eve of an election 
might have operated in the most inequitable manner 
upon the characters of individual members. 

The interposition of one or more State Legislatures, 
to controul the exercise of the powers vested by 



the general Constitution in the Congress of the United 
Statesj is at least of questionable policy. The views 
of a State Legislature are naturally and properly lim- 
ited in a considerable degree to the particular inter- 
ests of the State. The very object and formation of 
the National deliberative assemblies was for the com- 
promise and conciliation of the interests of all — of the 
whole nation. If the appeal from the regular, legiti- 
mate measures of the body where the whole nation is 
represented, be proper to one State Legislature, it 
must be so to another. If the commercial States are 
called to interposes on one hand, will not the agricul- 
tural States be with equal propriety summoned to in- 
terpose on the other ? If the East is stimulated against 
the West, and the Northern and Southern Sections 
are urged into collision with each other, by appeals 
from the acts of Congress to the respective States — 
in Vihat are these appeals to end? 

It is undoubtedly the right, and may often become 
the duty of a State Legislature, to address that of the 
Nation, with the expression of its wishes, in regard to 
interests peculiarly concerning the State itself. Nor 
shall I question the right of every member of the great 
federative compact to declare its own sense of meas- 
ures interesting to the nation at large. But whenever 
the case occurs that this sense should be " clearly and 
emphatically" expressed, it ought surely to be predi- 
cated upon a full and impartial consideration of the 
whole subject — not under the stimulus of a one sided 
representation — far less upon the Impulse of conjec- 
tures and suspicions. It is not through the medium 
of personal sensibility, nor of party bias, nor of pro* 
fessional occupation, nor of geographical position, that 
the whole Truth can be discerned, of questions in- 
volving the rights and interests of this extensive Union. 
When their discussion is urfrtd upon a State Lesrisla- 
ture, the first call upon its members should be to cast 
all their feelings and interests as the Citizens of a sin- 
gle State into the common Stock of the National con- 
cern. 

Should the occurrence upon which an appeal is 



ksdhl'' 



I 



made from the Councils of the Nation, to those of a 
single State be one, upon which the representation of 
the State had been divided, and the member who 
found himself in the minority, felt impelled by a sense 
of duty to invoke the interposition of his Constituents, 
it would seem that both in justice to them, and in 
candour to his colleague, some notice of such inten- 
tion should be given to him, that he too might be pre- 
pared to exhibit his views of the subject upon which 
the difference of opinion had taken place ; or at least 
that the resort should be had, at such a period of time as 
would leave it within the reach of possibility for his 
representations to be received, by their Common 
Constituents, before they would be compelled to de- 
cide on the merits of the case. 

The fairness and propriety of this course of pro- 
ceeding must be so obvious, that it is difficult to con- 
ceive of the propriety of any other. Yet it presents 
another inconvenience which must necessarily result 
from this practice of appellate legislation — When one 
of the Senators from a State proclaims to his constitu- 
ents that a particular measure, or system of measures 
which has received the vote and support of his col- 
league, are pernicious and destructive to those inter- 
ests which both are bound by the most sacred of ties, 
with zeal and fidelity to promote, the denunciation of 
the measures amounts to little less than a denunciation 
of the man. The advocate of a policy thus reprobat- 
ed must feel himself summoned by every motive of 
self-defence to vindicate his conduct : and if his gen- 
eral sense of his official duties would bind him to the 
industrious devotion of his whole time to the public 
business of the Session, the hours which he might be 
forced to employ for his own justification, would of 
course be deducted from the discharge of his more 
regular and appropriate functions. Should these oc- 
casions frequently recur, they could not fail to inter- 
fere with the due performance of the public business. 
Kor can I tbrbear to remark the tendency ot such an- 
tagonizing appeals to distract the Councils of the State 
in its own Legislature, to destroy its inftucnce, and 



pxpose it to derision, in the presence of its sister Stateji, 
and to produce between the colleagues themselves 
mutual asperities and rancours, until the great con- 
cerns of the nation would degenerate into the puny 
controversies of personal altercation. 

It is therefore with extreme reluctance that I enter 
upon this discussion. In developing my own views 
and the principles which have governed my con- 
duct in relation to our foreign affairs, and particularly 
to the Embargo, some very material differences i^ 
point of fact as well as of opinion, will be found be- 
tween my statements, and those of the letter, which 
alone can apologize for this. They will not, I trust, 
be deemed in any degree disrespectful to the writer. 
Far more pleasing would it have been to me, could 
that honest and anxious pursuit of the policy best cal- 
culated to promote the honour and welfare of our 
Country, which, I trust, is felt with equal ardour by 
us both, have resulted in the same opinions, and have 
given them the vigour of united exertion. There is 
a candour and liberality of conduct and of sentiment 
due from associates in the same public charge, to- 
wards each other, necessary to their individual repu- 
tation, to their common influence, and to their public 
usefulness. In our republican Government, where 
the power of the nation consists alone in the sympa- 
thies of opinion, this reciprocal deference, this open 
hearted imputation of honest intentions, is the only 
adamant at once attractive and impenetrable, that can 
bear, unshattercd, all the thunder of foreign hostility. 
Ever since I have had the honour of a seat in the 
National Councils, I have extended it to every depart- 
ment of the Government. However differing in my 
conclusions, upon questions of the highest moment, 
from any other man, of whatever party, I have never, 
upon suspicion, imputed his conduct to corrup- 
tion. If this confidence argues ignorance of public 
men and public affairs, to that ignorance I must plead 
guilty. I know, indeed, enough of human nature to 
be sensible that vigilant observation is at all times, 
and that suspicion may occasionally become necessary, 



-/ 



upon the conduct of men in power. But I know as 
well that confidence is the only cement of an elective 
government — I.lectionis the very test of confidence — 
and its periodical return is the constitutional check 
upon its abuse ; of which the electors must of course 
be the sole judges. For the exercise of power, where 
man is free, confidence is indispensable-r-and when 
it once totally fails — when the men to whom the peo- 
ple have committed the application of their force, for 
their benefit, are to be presumed the vilest of man- 
kind, the very foundation of the social compact must 
be dissolved. Towards the Gentleman whose official 
station results from the confidence of the same Legis- 
lature, by whose appointment 1 have the honour of 
holding a similar trust, I have thought this confidence 
peculiarly due from me, nor should I now notice his 
letter, notwithstanding the disapprobation it so obvi- 
ously implies at the course which 1 have pursued ir\ 
relation to the subjects of which it treats, did it no^ 
appear to me calculated to produce upon the public 
mind, impressions unfavourable to the rights and in- 
terests of the nation. 

Having understood that a motion in the Senate of 
Massachusetts was made by you, requesting the Gov- 
ernor to transmit Mr. Pickering's letter to the Legis- 
lature, together with such communications, relating 
to public affairs, as he might have received from me, 
1 avail myself of that circumstance, and of the friend- 
ship which has so long subsisted between us, to take 
the liberty of addressing this letter, intended for pub- 
lication, to you. Very few of the facts which I shall 
state will rest upon information peculiar to myself — 
Most of them will stand upon the babis of official 
documents, or of public and undisputed notoriety. 
For my opinions, though fully persuaded, that even 
where differing from your own, they will meet with a 
fair and liberal jaidge in you. yet of the public I ask 
neither favour nor indulgence. Pretending to no ex- 
traordinary credit from the authority of the writer, ^ 
am sensible they must fall by their own weakness, or 
stand by their own strength. 



The first remark ■which obtrudes itself upon the 
mind, on the perusal of Mr. Pickering's letter is, that 
in enumerating all the pretences (for he thinks there 
are no causes) for the Embargo, and for a War with 
Great Britain, he has totally omitted the British or- 
ders of Council of November 11, 1807, those or- 
ders, under which millions of the property of our 
fellow citizens, are now detained in British hands, or 
confiscated to British captors, those orders, under 
which tenfold as ma»y millions of the same property 
would have been at this moment in the same predica- 
ment, had they not been saved from exposure to it by 
the Embargo, those orders, which if once submitted to 
and carried to the extent of their principles, would not 
have left an inch of American canvass upon the ocean, 
but under British licence and British taxation. An 
attentive reader of the letter, without other informa- 
tion, would not even suspect their existence. They 
are indeed in one or two passages, faintly, and darkly 
alluded to under die justifying description of " the 
orders of the British Government, retaliating the 
French imperial decree :" but as causes for the Em- 
bargo, or as possible causes or even pretences of War 
with Great Britain, they are not only unnoticed, but 
their very existence is by direct implication denied. 

It is indeed true, that these orders were not ofiieial- 
ly communicated with the President's Message re- 
commending the Embargo. They had not been offi- 
cially received — But they were announced in several 
paragraphs from London and Liverpool Newspapers 
of the 10th, 1 1th and 12th of November, which ap- 
peared in the National Intelligencer of 1 8th Decem- 
ber, the day upon which the Embargo Message was 
sent to Congress. The British Government had taken 
care that they should not be authentically known be- 
fore their time — for the very same newspapers which 
gave this inofficial notice of these orders, announced 
also the departure of Mr. Rose, upon a special mis- 
sion to the United States. And we now know that of 
these all-devouring instruments of rapine, Mr. Rose 
was not even informed. — His pai^sjon was professedly 
B 



10 

a mission of conciliation and reparation for a flagrant 
— enormous — acknowledged outrage. — But he was 
not sent with these orders of Council in his hands. — 
His text, was the disavowal of Admiral Berkley's 
conduct — The Commentary was to be discovered on 
another page of the British ministerial policy — On the 
face of Mr. Rose's instructions, these orders of Coun- 
cil were as invisible, as thej^re on that of Mr. Pick- 
erinp-'s letter. 

o 

They were not merely without official authenticity. 
Rumours had for several weeks been in circulation^ 
derived from English prints, and fi'om private corres- 
pondences, that such orders were to issue ; and no 
inconsiderable pains were taken here to discredit the 
fact. Assurances were given that there was reason 
to believe no such orders to be contemplated. Suspi- 
cion 'Aas lulled by declarations equivalent nearly to a 
positive denial : and these opiates w^ere continued for 
"weeks after the Embargo was laid, until Mr. Erskinc 
received instructions to make the official communica- 
tion of the orders themselves, in their proper shape,, 
to our Government. 

Yet, although thus imauthenticated, and even al- 
thopgh thus in some sort denied, the probability of 
tlie circumstances under which they were announced, 
and the sweeping tendency of their effects, formed to 
my understanding a powerful motive, and together 
with the papers sent by the President, and his express 
recommendation, a decisive one^ for assenting to the 
Embargo. As a precautionary measure, I believed it 
would rescue an imanense property from depredation, 
if the orders should prove authentic. If the alarm 
was groundless, it must very soon be disproved, and 
the Embargo might be removed with the danger. 

The omission of all notice of these facts in the pres- 
sing enquiries " why the Embargo was laid ?" is the 
more surprising, because they are of all the facts, the 
most material, upon a fair and hupartial examination 
of the expediency of that Act, when it passed — And 
because these orders, together with the subsequent 
*' retaliating decrees of France and Spain, have fur- 



11 

nished the only reasons upon which I have acquiesscd 
an its continuance to this day. If duly weighed, they 
will save us the trouble of resorting to jealousies of 
secret corruption, and the imaginary terrors of Napo- 
lean for the real cause of the Embargo. These are 
iictionB of foreign invention — The French l^niperor 
had not declared that he would have no neutrals — He 
had not required that our ports should be shut against 
British Commerce — but the orders of Council if sub- 
mitted to would have degraded us to the condition of 
Colonies. If resisted would have fattened the wolves 
of plunder with our spoils. The Embargo was the 
only shelter from the Tempest — The last refuge of 
our violated Peace. 

I have indeed been myself of opinion that the Em- 
bargo, must in its nature be a temporary expedient, 
and that preparations manifesting a determination of 
resistance against these outrageous violations of our 
neutral rights ought at least to have been made a sub- 
ject of serious deliberation in Congress. I have be- 
lieved and do still believe that our internal resources 
are competent to the establishment and maintainance 
of a naval force public and private, if not fully ade- 
quate to the protection and defence of our Commerce, 
at least sufficient to induce a retreat from these hostil- 
ities and to deter from a renewal of them , by either of 
the warring parties ; and that a system to that effect 
might be formed, ultimately far more economical, and 
certainly more energetic than a three years Embargo. 
Very soon after the closure of our Ports, I did sub- 
mit to the consideration of the Senate, a proposition 
for the appointment of a comittee to institute an en- 
quiry to this end. But my resolution met no encour- 
agement. Attempts of a similar nature have been 
made in the House of Representatives, but have been 
equally discountenanced, and from these determina- 
tions by decided majorities of both houses, I am not 
sufficiently confident in the superiority of my own 
Wisdom to appeal, by a topical application to the con- 
genial feelings of any one — not even of my own native 
Section of the Union. 



it 

The Embargo, however, is a restriction always un- 
der our own controul. It was a measure altogether of 
defence, and of experiment — If it was injudiciously or 
over-hastily laid, it has been every day since its adop- 
tion open to a repeal : if it should prove ineffectual 
for the purposes which it was meant to secure, a sin- 
gle day will suffice to unbar the doors Still believ- 
ing it a measure justified by the circumstances of the 
time, I am ready to admit that those who thought 
otherwise may have had a wiser foresight of events, 
and a sounder judgment of the then existing state of 
things than the majority of the National Legislature, 
and the President. It has been approved by several 
of the State Legislatures, and among the rest by our 
own. Yet of all its effects we are still unable to judge 
with certainty. It must still abide the test of futuri- 
ty. I shall add that there were other motives which 
had their operation in contributing to the passage of 
the act, unnoticed by Mr. Pickering, and which hav- 
ing now ceased will also be left unnoticed by me. 
The orders of Council of 11th Nov. still subsist in all 
their force ; and are now confirmed, with the addition 
of taxation^ by act of Parliament. 

As they stand in front of the real causes for the 
Embargo, so they are entitled to the same pre-emi- 
nence in enumerating the causes of hostility, which 
the British Ministers are accumulating upon our for- 
bearance. They strike at the root of our independence. 
They assume the principle that we shall have no com- 
merce in time of war, but with her dominions, and as 
tributaries to her. The exclusive confinement of 
corrimerce to the mother country, is the great princi- 
ple of the modern colonial system ; and should we by 
a dereliction of our rights at this momentous stride of 
encroachment surrender our commercial freedom w ith- 
out a struggle, Britain has but a single step more to 
take, and she brings us back to the stamp act and the 
tea tax. 

Yet these orders — thus fatal to the liberties for 
which the sages and heroes of our revolution toiled 
and bled — thus studiously concealed until the mo- 



IS 

mcnt when they burst upon our heads — thus issued 
at the very instant when a mission of atonement was 
professedly sent — in these orders we are to see no- 
thing bat a " retaliating order upon France " — in 
these orders, we must not find so much as a cause — 
nay not so much as a pretence, for complaint against 
Britain. 

To my mind, Sir, in comparison with those orders, 
the three causes to which Mr. Pickering explicitly li- 
mits our grounds for a rupture with England, might 
indeed be justly denominated pretences — in compari- 
son with them, former aggressions sink into insig- 
nificance. To argue upon the subject of our disputes 
with Britain, or upon the motives for the Embargo, 
and keep them out of sight, is like laying your finger 
over the unit before a series of noughts, and then 
arithmetically proving that they all amount to nothing. 

It is not however in a mere omission, nor yet in the 
history of the Embargo, that the inaccuracies of the 
statement I am examining have given me the most 
serious concern — it is in the view taken of the ques- 
tions in controversy between us and Britain. The 
wisdom of the Embargo is a question of great, but 
transient magnitude, and omission sacrifices no na- 
tional right. Mr. Pickering's object was to dissuade 
the nation from a war with England, into which he 
suspected the administration was plunging us, under 
French compulsion. But the tendency of his pam- 
phlet is to reconcile the nation, or at least the com- 
mercial States, to the servitude of British protection, 
and war with all the rest of Europe. Hence England 
is represented as contending^ for the common liberties 
of mankind, and our only safe- guard against the ambi- 
tion and injustice of France. Hence all our sensibili- 
ties are invoked in her favour, and all our antipathies 
against her antagonist. Hence too all the subjects of 
differences between us and Britain are alledged to be 
on our part mere pretences^ of whieh the right is une- 
quivocally pronounced to be on her side. Proceeding 
from a Senator of the United States, specially charged 
as a member of the executive with the maintenance 



^■^■■ijitmn.. 



u 

©f the nation's rights, against foreign powers, and at 
a moment extremely critical of pending negotiation 
upon all the points thus delineated, this formal aban- 
donment of the American cause, this summons of un- 
conditional surrender to the pretensions of our anta- 
gonist, is in my mind highly alarming. It becomes 
therefore a duty to which every other consideration 
must yield to point out the errors of this representa- 
tion. Before we strike the standard of the nation, let 
us at least examine the purport of the summons. 

And first, with respect to the impressment of our 
seamen. We are told that " the taking of British sea- 
men found on board our merchant vessels, by British 
ships of war, is agreeably to a rights claimed and ex- 
ercised for ages." It is obvious that this claim and 
exercise of ages, could not apply to us, as an indepen- 
dent people. If the right was claimed and exercised 
while our vessels were navigating under the British 
flag, it could not authorize the same claim when their 
owners have become the citizens of a sovereign state. 
As a relict of colonial servitude, whatever may be the 
claim of Great Britain, it surely can be no ground for 
contending that it is entitled to our submission. 

If it be meant that the right has been claimed and 
exercised for ages over the merchant vessels of other 
nations, I apprehend it is a mistake. The case never 
occurred with sufficient frequency to constitute even 
a practice, much less a right. If it had been either, it 
would have been noticed by some of the writers on 
the laws of nations. The truth is, the question arose 
out of American Independence — from the severance 
of one nation into two. It was never made a question 
between any other nations. There is therefore no 
right of prescription. 

But, it seems, it has also been claimed and exercised^ 
during the whole of the three Administrations of our 
national Government. And is it meant to be asserted 
that this claim and exercise constitute a right ? If it 
is, I appeal to the uniform, unceasing and urgent re- 
monstrances of the three administrations — I appeal 
not only to the warm feelings, but cool justice of the 



15 

American People — nay, I appeal to the sound sense 
and hononrable sentiment ©f the British nation itself, 
which, however, it may have submitted at home to 
this practice, never would tolerate its sanction by law, 
against the assertion. If it is not, how can it be affirm- 
ed that it is on our part a mere pretence ? 

But the first merchant of the United States, in an- 
swer to Mr. Pickering's late enquiries has informed 
him that since the affair of the Chesapeake there has 
been no cause of complaint— that he could not find a 
single instance where they- had taken one man out of 
a merchant vessel. Who it is, that enjoys the dignity 
of first merchant of the United States we are not in- 
formed. But if he had applied to many merchants in 
Boston as respectable as any in the United States, they 
could have told him of a valuable vessel and cargo, 
totally lost upon the coast of England, late in August 
last, and solely in consequence of having had two of 
her men, native Americans taken from her by impress- 
ment, two months after the affair of the Chesapeake. 

On the 15th of October, the king England issued 
his proclamation, coinmanding his naval officers, to im- 
press his subjects from neutral vessels. This procla- 
mation is represented as merely " requiring the return 
of his subjects, the seamen especially, from foreign 
countries," and then '' it is an acknowledged princi- 
ple that every nation has a right to the service of its 
subjects in time of war." Is this. Sir, a correct state- 
Tuciit either of the Proclamation, or of the question it 
involves in which our right is concerned ? The king 
of England's right to the service of his subjects in 
time of war is nothing to us. The question is, whe- 
ther he has a right to seize them forcibly on board of our 
vessels while under contract of service to our citizens, 
withia our jurisdiction upon the high seas ? And 
whether he has a right expressly to command his na- 
val officers so to seize them — Is this an acknowleds-ed 
principle ? certainly not. Why then is this Pro- 
claiTiLition described as founded upon uncontested 
principle? and why is the command, so justly offen- 
sive to us, and so mischievous as it might then have 
been made in execution, altogether omitted ? 



16 

But it is not the taking of British subjects from our 
vessels, it is the taking under colour of that pretence 
our own, native American citizens, which constitutes 
the most galling aggravation of this merciless practice. 
Yet even this, we are told is but a pretence — for three 
reasons. 

1. Because the number of citizens thus taken, is 
small. 

2. Because it arises only from the impossibility of 
distinguishing Englishmen from Americans. 

3. Because, such impressed American citizens are 
delivered up, on duly authenticated proof. 

1. Small and great in point of numbers are relative 
terms. To suppose that the native Americans form a 
small proportion of the whole number impressed is a 
mistake — The reverse is the fact. Examine the offi- 
cial returns from the Department of State. They give 
the names of between four and five thousand men im- 
pressed since the commencement of the present War. 
Of which number, not one fifth part were British Sub- 
jects — The number of naturalized Americans could 
not amount to one tenth, — I hazard little in saying 
that more than three fourths were native Americans. 
If it be said that some of these men, though appearing 
on the face of the returns American Citizens, were re- 
ally British subjects, and had fraudulently procured 
their protections ; I reply that this number must be 
far exceeded by the cases of Citizens impressed, which 
never reach the Department of State. The x'Vmeri- 
can Consul in London estimates the number of im- 
pressments during the War at nearly three times the 
amount of the names returned. If the nature of the 
offence be considered in its true colours, to a people 
having a just sense of personal liberty and security, it 
is in every single instance, of a malignity not inferior 
to that of nrtirder. The very same act, when commit- 
ted by the recruiting officer of one nation within the 
territories of another, is by the universal Lav/ and u- 
sage of nations punished with death. Suppose the 
crime had in every instance, as by its consequences it 
has been in many, deliberate murder. Would it an- 



i? 

"Siwer or silence the voice of our complaints to be told 
that the number was small ? 

2. The impossibility of distinguishing English 
from American seamen is not the only, nor even the 
most frequent occasion of impressment. Look again 
into the returns from the Department of State — you will 
see that the officers take our men without pretending 
to enquire where they were born ; sometimes merely 
to shew their animosity, or their contempt for our 
country ; sometimes from the wantonness of power. 
When they manifest the most tender regard for the 
neutral rights of America, they lament that they want 
the men. They regret the necessity, but they must 
have their complement. When we complain of these 
enormities, we are answered that the acts of such offi- 
cers were unauthorized ; that the commanders of 
Men of War, are an unruly set of men, for whose vio- 
lence their own Government cannot always be answer^ 
able, that enquiry shall be made — A Court Martial 
is sometimes mentioned — And the issue of Whitby's 
Court Martial has taught us what relief is to be ex- 
pected from that. There are even examples I am 
told, when such officers have been put upon the yel- 
low list. But this is a rare exception — The ordinary- 
issue when the act is disavowed, is the promotion of 
the actor. 

3. The impressed native American Citizens how% 
ever, upon duly authenticated proof are delivered up. 
Indeed ! how unreasonable then were complaint 1 how 
effectual a remedy for the wrong ! an American ves- 
sel, bound to a European port, has two, three or four 
native Americans, impressed by a British Man of 
War, bound to the East or West Indies. When the 
American Captain arrives at his port of destination he 
makes his protest, and sends it to the nearest Ameri- 
can Minister or Consul. When he returns home, he 
transmits the duplicate of his protest to the Secretary 
of State. In process of time, the names of the im- 
pressed men, and of the Ship into which they have 
been impressed, are received by the Agent in Lon- 
don. He makes his demand that the men may lie. 

c 



delivered up — The Lords of the Admiralty, after a 
reasonable time for enquiry and advisement, return for 
answer, that the Ship is on a foreign Station, and their 
Lordships caa therefore take no further steps in the 
matter — Or, that the ship has been taken, and that the 
men have been received in exchange for French pris- 
oners — Or, that the men had no protections (the im- 
pressing officers often having taken them from the 
men) — Or, that the men were probably British subjects. 
Or that they have entered, and taken the Bounty ; 
(to which the officers know how to reduce them.) 
Or that they have been married, or settled in England. 
In all these cases, without further ceremony, their dis- 
charge is refused. Sometimes, their Lordships, in a 
vein of humour, inform the agent that the man has 
been discharged as imserviceabk. Sometimes, in si 
sterner tone, they say he was an imposter. Or per- 
haps by way of consolation to his relatives and friends, 
they report that he has fallen in Battle, against nations 
in Amity with his Country. Sometimes they cooly 
return that there is no such man on hoard the ship ; 
and what has become ot him, the agonies of a wife and 
children in his native land may be left to conjecture. 
When all these and many other such apologies for 
refusal fail, the native American seaman is discharg- 
ed — and when by the charitable aid of his Government 
he has found his way home, he comes to be informed, 
that all is as it should be — that the number of his fel- 
low-sufferers is small — that it was impossible to dis- " 
tinguish him from an Englishman — and that he was 
delivered up, on duly authenticated proof. 

Enough, of this disgusting subject — I cannot stop 
to calculate how many of these wretched victims arc 
natives of Massachusetts, and how many natives of 
Virginia — I cannot stop to solve that knotty question 
of national jurisprudence whether some of them might 
not possibly be slaves, and therefore not Citizens of 
the United States — I cannot stay to account for the 
wonder, why, poor, and ignorant and friendless as 
most of them are, the voice of their complaints is so 
seldom heard in the great navigating States. I ad- 



19 

» * 

niit that we have endured this cruel, indignity, through 
all the administrations of the General Government. — 
I acknowledge that Britain claims the right of seizing 
her subjects in our merchant vessels, and that even if 
we could acknowledge it, the line of discrimination 
would be difficult to draw. We are not in a condi- 
tion to maintain this right, by War. and as the Brit- 
ish Government have been more than once on the 
point of giving it up of their own accord, 1 would 
still hope for the day when returning Justice shall in- 
duce them to abandon it, without compulsion. Her 
subjects we do not want. The degree of protection 
which we are bound to extend to them, cannot equal the 
claim of our own citizens. 1 would subscribe to any 
compromise of this contest, consistent with the rights of 
sovereignty, the duties of humanity, and the principles 
of reciprocity : but to the right of forcing even her own 
subjects out of our merchant vessels on the high seas 
I never can assent. 

The second point upon which Mr. Pickering defends 
the pretentions of Great Britain, is her denial to neutral 
nations of the right of prosecuting with her enemies and 
their colonies, any commerce from which they are ex- 
cluded in time of peace. His statement of this case 
adopts the British doctrine, as sound. The rights as on 
the question of impressment, so on this, it surrenders at 
discretion — and it is equally defective in point of fact. 

In the first place, the claim of Great Britain, is not to 
" a right of imposing on this neutral commerce some 
limits and restraints'''' — but of interdicting it altogether, 
at her pleasure, of interdicting it without a moment's 
notice to neutrals, after solemn decisions of her courts 
of admiralty, and formal acknowledgments of her minis- 
ters, that it is a lawful trade — And, on such a sudden, 
unnotified interdiction of pouncing upon all neutral com- 
merce navigating upon the faith of her decisions and ac- 
knowledgments, and of gorging with confiscation the 
greediness of her cruizers — This is the right claimed b)' 
Britain — This is the power she has exercised — What 
Mr. Pickering calls "limits and restraints," she calls re- 
Taxations of lier right. 



20 

It is but little more tban two years, since this question, 
was agitated both in England and America, with as 
much zeal, energy and ability, as ever was displayed 
upon any question of national Law. The British side 
was supported by Sir William bcott, Mr. Ward, and 
the author uf War in Disguise. But even in Britain 
their doctrine was refuted to demonstration by the Edin- 
burg reviewers. In America, the rights of our country 
were maintained by numerous writers profoundly skilled 
in the science of national and maritime Law. The jln- 
swer to War in Disguise was ascribed to a Gentleman 
whose talents are universally acknowledged, and who by 
his oflficial situations had been required thoroughly to 
iavcstigate eveiy question of conflict between neutral 
and belligerent rights \\'hich has occurred in the history 
of modern War. Mr. Gore and Mr. Piitckney, our two 
commissioners at London, under Mr. Jay's Treaty, the 
former, in a train of cool and conclusive argument ad- 
drcb. el to Mr. Madison, the latter in a memorial of 
splendid eloquence from the Merchants of Baltimore, 
supported the same cause ; memorials, drawn by lawyers 
of distinguished eminence, by Merchants of the highest 
character, and by statesmen of long experience in our 
national councils came from Salem, from Boston, from 
New- Haven, from New- York and from Philadelphia to- 
gether with remonsti^ances to the same effect from New- 
buryport, Newport, Norfolk and Charleston. This ac- 
cumulated mass of legal learning, of commercial infor- 
mation and of national sentiment from almost every in- 
habited spot upon our shores, and from one exti^emity of 
the union to the other, confirmed by the unanswered and 
unanswerable memorial of Mr. Munroe to the British 
minister, and by the elaborate research and irresistible 
reasoning of the examination of the British doctrine, was 
also made a subject of full, and deliberate discussion in 
the Senate of the United States. A committee of seveii 
members of that body, after three weeks of arduous in- 
vestigation, reported three Resolutions, the first of which 
M'as in these words " Resolved that die capture and con- 
demnation, under the orders of the British government, 
and adjudications of their courts of admiralty of Ameri- 
can vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext of their beipg 



21 

employed iti a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, 
prohibited in time of peace, is au unprovoked aggression 
upon the property of the citizens of these United States, 
a violation of their neutral rights, and an encroachment 
upon their national Independence.''^ 

On the 13th of February, 1806, the question upon 
the adoption of this Resolution, was taken in the Sen- 
ate. The yeas and nays were required ; but not a 
solitary nay was heard in ansAver. It was adopted by 
the unanimous voice of all the Senators present. They 
were twenty. eight in number, and among them stands 
recorded the name of Mr. Pickering. 

Let us remember that this was a question most pe- 
culiarly and immediately of commercial, and not agri- 
cidtral interest ; that it arose from a call, loud, energet- 
ic and unanimous, from all the merchants of the Unit- 
ed States upon Congress, for the national interposi- 
tion ; that many of the memorials invoked all the 
energy of the Legislature, and pledged the lives and 
properties of the memorialists in support of any mea- 
sures which Congress might deem necessary to vin- 
dicate those rights. Negotiation was particularly re- 
commended from Boston, and elsewhere — negotiation 
vTas adopted — negotiation has failed — and now Mr. 
Pickering tells us that Great-Britain has claimed and 
maintained her right ! He argues that her claim is 
just — and is not sparing of censure upon those who 
still consider it as a serious cause of complaint. 

But there was one point of view in which the Brit- 
ish doctrine on this question was then only consider- 
ed incidentally in the United States — because it was 
not deemed material for the discussion of our rights. 
We examined it chiefly as aifecting the principles as 
between a belligerent and a neutral power. But in 
fact it was an infringement of the rights of War, as 
well as of the rights of Peace. It was an unjustifiable 
enlargement of the sphere of hostile operations. The 
enemies of Great Britain had by the universal Law of 
Nations a right to the benefits of neutral Commerce 
within their dominions (subject to the exceptions of 
■3'ctual blockade and contraband) as well as neutral na- 



tions had a right to trade with them. The cxchisioii 
from that commerce by this new principle of warfare 
which Britain, in defiance of all immemorial national 
usages, undertook by her single authority to establish, 
but too naturally led her enemies to resort to new and 
extraordinary principles, by which in their turn they 
might retaliate this injury upon her. The pretence 
upon which Britain in the first instance had attempted 
to colour her injustice, was a misti"db\cJiction — It was 
an argument against fact. Her reasoning was, that a 
neutral vessel by mere admission in time of war, into 
Ports from which it would have been excluded in 
time of peace, became thereby deprived of its national 
character, and ipso facto was transformed into enemy's 
property. 

Such was the basis upon which arose the far famed 
rule of the war of 1756 — Such was the foundation up- 
on which Britain claimed and fnaintained this supposed 
right of adding that new instrument of desolation to the 
horrors of war — It was distressing to her enemy — 
yes ! Had she adopted the practice of dealing with 
them in poison — Had Mr. Fox accepted the services 
©f the man who offered to rid him of the French Em^ 
peror by assassination, and had the attempt succeeded, 
it would have been less distressing to France than 
this rule of the war of 17S6 ; and not more unjustifia- 
ble. Mr. Fox had too fair a mind for cither, but his 
comprehensive and liberal spirit was discarded, with 
the Cabinet which he had formed. 

It has been the struggle of reason and humanity, 
and above all of Christianity for two thousand years to 
mitigate the rigours of that scourge of human kind, 
war. It is now the struggle of Britain to aggravate 
them. Her rule of the war of 1756, in itself and in its 
effects, was one of the deadliest poisons, in which it 
was possible for her to tinge the weapons of her hostil- 
ity. 

In itself and in its effects, I say — For the French 
decrees of Berlin and of Milan, the Spanish and 
Dutch decrees of the same or the like tenor, and her 
©wa orders of January and November— these alterna- 



2S 

tions of licenced pillage, this eager competition be*- 
tween her and her enemies for the honour of giving the 
last stroke to the vitals of maritime neutrality, all are 
justly attributable to her assumption and exercise of 
this single principle. The rule of the War of 1756 
was the root, from which all the rest are but suckers^ 
still at every shoot growing ranker in luxuriance. 

In the last decrees of France and Spain, her own in- 
genious fiction is adopted ; and under them, every neu- 
tral vessel that submits to English search, has been car- 
ried into an English port, or paid a tax to the English 
Government is declared denationalized ^ that is to have 
lost her national character, and to have become Eng- 
lish property. This is cruel in execution ; absurd 
in argument. To refute it were folly, for to the un- 
derstanding of a child it refutes itself. But it is the 
reasoning of British Jurists. It is the simple applica- 
tion to the circumstances and powers of France, of 
the rule of the war of 1756. 

I am not the apologist of France and Spain ; I have 
no national partialities ; no national attachments but 
to my own country. I shall never undertake to justify 
or to palliate the insults or injuries of any foreign 
power to that country which is dearer to me than life. 
If the voice of Reason and of Justice could be heard 
by France and Spain, they would say — you have done 
wrong to make the injustice of your enemy towards 
neutrals the measure of your own. If she chastises 
with whips do not you chastise with Scorpions. — 
Whether France would listen to this language, 1 know 
not. The most enormous infractions of our rights 
hitherto committed by her, have been more in menace 
than in accomplishment. The alarm has been justly 
great ; the anticipation threatening ; but the amount 
of actual injury small. But to Britain, what can we 
say ? If we attempt to raise our voices, her Minister 
has declared to Mr. Pinckney that she will not hear. 
The only reason she assigns for her recent orders of 
Council is, that France proceeds on the same princi- 
ples. It is not by the light of blazing temples, and 
amid the groans of women and children perishing in 
the ruins of the sanctuaries of domestic habitation at 



24 

Copenhagen, that we can expect our remonstrancS 
against this course of proceeding will be heard. 

Let us come to the third and last of the causes of 
complaint, which are represented as so frivolous and 
so unfounded — " the unfortunate affair of the Chesa- 
peake." The orders of Admiral Berkley, under which 
this outrage was committed, have been disavowed by 
his Government. General professions of a willingness 
to make reparation for it, have been lavished in pro- 
fusion ; and we are now instructed to take these pro- 
fessions for cndeaiiours ; to believe them sincere, be- 
cause his Britannic Majesty sent us a special envoy ; 
and to cast the odium of defeating these endeavours 
upon our own government. 

I have already told you, that I am not one of those 
who deem suspicion and distrust, in the highest order 
of political virtues. Baseless suspicion is, in my esti- 
mation, a vice, as pernicious in the management of 
public affairs, as it is fatal to the happiness of domestic 
life. When, therefore, the British Ministers have 
declared their disposition to make ample reparation 
for an injury of a most atrocious character, committed 
by an officer of high rank, and, as they say, utterly 
without authority I should most readily believe them, 
were their professions not positively contradicted by 
facts of more powerful eloquence than words. 

Have such facts occurred ? I will not again allude to 
the circumstances of Mr. Rose's departure upon his 
mission at such a precise point of time, that his Com- 
mission and the orders of Council of llth November, 
might have been signed with the same penful of ink. 
The subjects were not immediately connected with 
each other, and his Majesty did not chuse to associ- 
ate distinct topics of negotiation. The attack upon 
the Chesapeake was disavowed ; and ample reparation 
was withheld only, because with the demand for satis- 
faction upon that injury, the American Government 
had coupled a demand for the cessation of others ; a- 
like in kind, but of minor aggravation. But had re- 
paration really been intended, would it not have been 
offered, not in vague and general terms, but in precise 
and specific proposals ? Were any such made ? None. 



2i 

JBut it is said Mr. Munroe was restricted from negotia- 
ting upon this subject apart ; and therefore Mr. Rose 
was to be sent to Washington ; charged with this 
single object ; and without authority to treat upon 
or even to discuss any other. Mr. Rose arrives— 
The American government readily determine to treat 
upon the Chesapeake affair, separately from all others ; 
but before Mr. Rose sets his foot on shore, in pursuance 
of a pretension made before by Mr. Canning, he con- 
nects with the negotiation, a subject far more distinct 
from the butchery of the Chesapeake, than the general 
impressment of our seamen, I mean the Proclamation, 
interdicting to British ships of war, the entrance of our 
harbours. 

The great obstacle which has always interfered in the 
adjustment of our differences with Britain, has been that 
she would not acquiesce in the only principle upon which 
fair negotiation between independent nations can be con- 
ducted, the principle of reciprocity, that she refuses the 
application to us of the claim which she asserts for her- 
self. The forcible taking of men from an American 
vessel, was an essential part of the outrage upon the 
Chesapeake. It was the ostensible purpose for which 
that act of war unproclaimed, was committed. The 
President's Proclamation was a subsequent act, and was 
avowedly founded upon many similar aggressions, of 
which that was only the most aggravated. 

If then Britain could with any colour of reason claim 
that the general question of impressment should be laid 
out of the case altogether, she ought upon the principle 
of reciprocity to have laid equally out of the case, the 
proclamation, a measure so easily separable from it, and 
in its nature merely defensive. When therefore she 
made the repeal of the Proclamation an indispensible 
preliminary to all discussion upon the nature and extent 
of that reparation which she had offered, she refused to 
treat with us upon the footing of an independent power. 
She insisted upon an act of self-degradation on our part, 
before she would even tell us, what redress she would 
condescend to grant for a great and acknowledged 
wrong. This was a condition which she could not but 
know to be inadmissible, and is of itself proof nearly 



2S 

conclusive that her Cabinet never intended to make fo'F 
that wrong any reparation at ah. 

But this is not all — It cannot be forgotten that when 
that atrocious deed was committed, amidst the general 
burst of indignation which resounded from every part of 
this Union, there were among us a small number of per- 
sons, who upon the opinion that Berkley's orders were 
authorized by his Government, undertook to justify 
them in their fullest extent — These ideas probably first 
propagated by British official characters, in this Country, 
were persisted in until the disavowal of the British Gov- 
ernment took away the necessity for persevering in them, 
and gave notice where the next position was to be taken. 
This patriotic reasoning hovrever had been so satisfac- 
tory at Halifax, that complimentary letters were received 
irom Admiral Berkley himself highly approving the 
spirit in which they were inculcated, and remarking how 
easily Peace, between the United States and Britain 
might be preserved, if /Ac? measure of our national rights 
could be made the prevailing standard of the Country. 

When the news arrived in England, although the gen- 
eral sentinient of the nation was not prepai-ed for the for- 
mal avowal and justification of this unparalleled aggres- 
sion, yet there were not wanting persons there, ready to 
claim and maintain the right of searching national ships 
for deserters — It was said at the time, but for this we 
must of course rest upon the credit of inofficial authority, 
to have been made a serious question in the Cabinet 
Council ; nor was its determination there ascribed to 
the eloquence of the gentleman w ho became the official 
organ of its communication — Add to this a circum- 
stance, which without claiming the irrefragable credence 
of a diplomatic note, has yet its weight upon the com- 
mon sense of mankind ; that in all the daily newspapers 
known to be in the ministerial interest, Berkley was justi- 
fied and applauded in every variety of Ibrm that publica- 
tion could assume, excepting only that of official Procla- 
mation. — The only part of his orders there disapproved 
was the reciprocal offer which he made of submitting his 
own ships to be searched in return — that was very un- 
equivocally disclaimed — The ruffian right of superior 
force, \^•as the solid base upon which the claim was as- 



2f 

serted, and so familiar was this argument grown to the 
jcasuists of British nalioijal Jurisprudence, that the right 
of a British man of war to search an American frigate, 
was to them a self-evident proof against the right of the 
American frigate to search the British man of war. 
The same tone has been constantly kept up, until our 
accounts of latest date ; and have been recently further 
invigorated by a very explicit call for war w'nh the 
United States, which they contend could be of no possi- 
ble injury to Britain, and which they urge upon the 
ministry as affording them an excellent opportunity to 
accomplish a dismemberment of this Union. — These 
sentiments have even been avowed in Parliament, where 
the noblemin who moved the address of the house of 
Lords in ans^^^er to the king's speech, declared that the 
right of searching national ships, ought to be maintained 
against the Americans, and disclaimed only with respect 
to European sovereigns. 

In the mean time Admiral Berkley, by a court mar- 
tial of his owii subordinate officers, hung one of the men 
taken from the Chesapeake, and called his name Jenkin 
Ratford. — There was, according to the ans^ver so fre- 
quently given by the Lords of the Admiralty, upon ap- 
plications for the discharge of impressed Americans, ?w 
such man on board the ship. The man thus executed 
had been taken from the Chesapeake by the name of 
Wilson. It is said that on his trial he was identified by 
one or two witnesses who knew him, and that before he 
was turned oiff he confessed his name to be Ratford and 
that he was born in England — But it has also been said 
that Ratford is now living in Pennsylvania — and after 
the character which the disavowal of Admiral Berkley's 
own government has given to his conduct, what confi- 
dence can be claimed or due to the proceedings of a 
court martial of his associates lield to sanction his pro- 
ceedings. — The three other men had not e\'en been de- 
manded in his orders — They \Aere taken by the sole au - 
thority of the British searching lieutenant, after the sur- 
render of the Chesapeake. — There was not the shadow 
of a pretence before the court martial that they were 
British subjects, or born in any of the British dominions. 
Yet by this court martial thc)^ Avere i^entenced to suffej 



death. They were reprieved from execution, only up- 
on condition of renouncing their rights as Americans by 
voluntary service in the king's ships — They have never 
been restored. — To complete the catastrophe with which 
this bloody tragedy was concluded, Admiral Berkley 
himself in sanctioning the doom of these men — -thus ob- 
tained — thus tried — ^and thus sentenced, read them a 
grave moral lecture on the enormity of their crime, in 
its tendency to provoke a war between the United 
States and Great Britain. 

Yet amidst all this parade of disavowal by liis govern- 
ment — amidst all these professions of readiness to make 
reparation, not a single mark of the slightest disapproba- 
tion appears ever to have been manifested to that officer. 
His instructions were executed upon the Chesapeake in 
June — Rumours of his recall have been circulated here — • 
But on leaving the station at Halifax in December, he 
received a complimentary address from the colonial as- 
sembly, and assured them in answer, that he had no of- 
ficial information of his recall. — From thence he went to 
the West Indies ; and on leaving Bei-muda for England 
in February was addressed again by that colonial gov- 
ernment, in terms of high panegyric upon his energy, 
with manifest allusion to his atchievement upon th^ 
Chesapeake. 

Under all these circumstances, without applying any 
of the maxims of a suspicious policy to the British pro- 
fessions, I may still be permitted to believe that their 
ministry never seriously intended to make us honourable 
reparation, or indeed any reparation at all for that " un- 
fortunate aifair. '.' 

It is impossible for any man to form an accurate idea 
of the British policy towards the United States, without 
taking into consideration the state of parties in that gov- 
ernment ; and the views, characters and opinions of the 
individuals at dieir helm of State — -A liberal and a hostile 
policy towards America, are among the strongest marks 
of distinction between the political systems of the rival 
statesmen of that kingdom — -The liberal party are recon- 
ciled to our Independence ; and though extremely tena- 
cious of every right of their own country, are systemati- 
cally disposed to preserve peace with the United States. 






Their opponents harbour sentiments of a very different 
description — Their sy stern is coercion — ^Their object 
the recovery of their lost dominion in North America — 
This party now stands high in power — Although Ad- 
miral Berkley may never have received written orders 
from them for his enterprize upon the Chesapeake, yet 
in giving his instructions to the squadron at Norfolk, he 
knew full well under \vhat administration he was acting. 
Every measure of that administration towards us since 
that time has been directed to the same purpose — To 
break do^^■n the spirit of our national Independence. 
Their purpose, as far as it can be collected from tlieir 
acts, is to force us into war with them or with 
their enemies ; to leave us only the bitter alternative of 
their vengeance or their protection. 

Both these parties are no doubt willing, that we 
should join them in the war of their nation against 
France and her allies — The late administration would 
have dra^vn us into it by treaty, the present are at- 
tempting it by compulsion. The former w^ould have 
admitted us as allies, the latter will have us no other- 
wise than as colonists. Qn the late debates in Parlia- 
ment, the lord chancellor freely avowed that the orders 
of Council of 11th. November were intended to make 
America at last sensible of the policy of joining Eng- 
land against France. 

This too. Sir, is the substantial argument of Mr. 
Pickering's letter. — The suspicions of a design in our 
own administration to plunge us into a war widi Britain, 
I never have shared. Our administration have every 
interest and every motive that can influence the conduct 
of man to deter them from any such purpose. Nor have 
I seen any thing in their measures bearing the slightest 
indication of it. But between a design of v\ ar w ith Eng- 
land, and a surrender of our national freedom for the 
sake of war vvilh the rest of Europe, there is a material 
difference. This is the polic}- no\v^ in substance recom- 
iuended to us, and for which the interposition of the 
commercial States is culled. For this, not only are all 
ihe outrages of Britain to be forgotten, but the very 
assertion of our rights is to be branded with odium. — 
impressment — Neutral trade — Bj'itish taxation — Every 



50 

tiling' that can dislinguish a state of national freedom from 
a state of national vassalage, is to be surrendered at dis- 
cretion. In tlic face of every fact we are told to believe 
every profession — In the midst of every iiuhgnity^ we are 
pointed to Britisli protection as our only shield against 
the universal conqueror. Every phantom of jealousy 
and fear is evoked — Theimageof France with a scourge 
in her hand is impressed into the service, to lash us into 
the refuge of obedience to Britain — insinuations are 
even made that if Britain "with her thousand ships of 
war," has not destroyed our commerce, it has been ow- 
ing to her indulgence, and we are almost threatened in 
her name with the " destruction of our fairest cities." 

Not one act of hostility to Britain has been committed 
by us, she has not a pretence of that kind to alledge — 
But if she will w^age war upon us, are we to do nothing 
in our own defence ? If she issues orders of universal 
plunder upon our commerce, arc we not to withhold it 
from her grasp ? Is American pillage one of those rights 
which she has claimed and exercised until w^e are fore- 
closed from any attempt to obstruct its collection ? For 
what purpose are we required to make tliis sacrifice of 
every thing that can gi\e valour to the name of freemen, 
this abandonment of the A'ery right of self-preservation ? 
Is it to avoid a war ? — Alas ! Sir, it does not offer even 
this plausible plea for pusillanimity — -For, as submission 
would make us to all substantial purposes British colo- 
nies, her enemies would unquestionablv treat us as such, 
and after degradhig ourselves into voluntajy servitude 
to escape a war with her, we should incur inevitable war 
with all her enemies, and be doomed to share the desti- 
nies of her conflict ^\ith a u oild in arms. 

Between this unqualified submission, and cfiensive; 
resistance against the \\ar upon maritime neutrality wag- 
ed by the concurring decrees of all the great belligerent 
powers, the Embargo was adopted, and has been hiiherto 
continued. So far was it from being dictated by France, 
that it \\'as calculated to withdraw, and has withdrawn 
from within herreachall the means of compulsion which 
lier subsequent decrees would have put in her posses- 
sion. It has added to the motives both of France and 
England, for preserving peace with us, and has diminish- 



51 

ed their inducements to war. It has lessened their fca- 
|)acities of inflicting injury upon us, and given us some 
preparation for resistance to them — It has taken from 
their violence the lure of interest — It has dashed the 
philter of pillage from the lips of rapine. That it is dis- 
tressing to ourselves — that it calls for the fortitude of a 
people, determined to maintain their rights, is not to be 
denied. But the only alternative was between that and 
war. Whether it will yet save us from that calamity, 
cannot be determined, but if not, it will prepare us for 
the further struggle to which we may be called. Its 
double tendency of promoting peace and preparing for 
war, in its operation upon both the belligerent rivals, is 
the great advantage, which more than outweigh all its 
evils. 

If any statesman can point out another alternative, I 
am ready to hear him, and for any practicable ex- 
pedient to lend him every possible assistance. But 
let not that expedient be, submission to trade under 
British licences, and British taxation. We are told that 
even under these restrictions we may yet trade to the 
British dominions, to Africa and China, and with the col- 
onies of France, Spain, and Holland. I ask not how much 
of this trade would be left, \v hen our intercourse with 
the whole continent of Europe being cut off would leave 
us no means of purchase, and no market for sale ? — I 
ask not, what trade we could enjoy with the colonies of 
nations with which we should be at war ? I ask not 
how long Britain would leave open to us avenues of 
trade, which even in these very orders of Council, she 
boasts of leaving open as a special indulgence ? If we 
yield the principle, we abandon all pretence to national 
sovereignty — To yearn for the fragments of trade which 
might be left, would be to pine for the crumbs of com- 
mercial servitude — The boon, which we should humili- 
ate ourselves to accept from British bounty, would soon 
be withdrawn. Submission never yet sat boundaries to 
encroachment. From pleading for half the empire, we 
should sink into supplicants for life — We should sup- 
plicate in vain. If we must fall, let us fall, freemen — If 
we must perish, let it be in defence of our rights. 



32 

l*o conclude, Sir, I am not sensible of any uGcessit^ 
for the extraordinary interference of the commercial 
States, to controul the general Councils of the nation. — 
If any interference could at this critical extremity of our 
affairs have a kindly effect upon our common welfare, it 
would be an interference to promote union and not divi- 
sion — to urge mutual confidence, and not universal dis- 
trust — to strengthen the arm and not to relax the sinews 
of the nation. Our suffering and our dangers, though 
differing perhaps in degree, are universal in extent. — 
As their causes are justly chargeable, so their removal 
is dependent not upon ourselves, but upon others. But 
while the spirit of Independence shall continue to beat 
ill unison with the pulses of the nation, no danger will 
be truly formidable — Our duties are, to prepare with 
concerted energy, for those which threaten us, to meet 
them without dismay, and to rely for their issue upon 
Heaven. 

I am, with g^6at respect and attachment, 

Dear Sir, your friend and humble servant, 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 



Hon, Harrison Gray Otis. 



f. V 



